Today’s Climahysteria
As we begin a New Year, please join me in taking the Climate Change challenge personally. By resolving to get active in your community and make small but important changes in your daily life, you’ll not only get to know your neighbors better, but you’ll also get connected to a global effort to keep the world a beautiful place for future generations.
Good luck with the part about making “small but important changes in your daily life,” Elin Miller. Climahysterics love to talk and bring awareness, but, actually changing their lifestyles? You’re lucky if you can get them to switch to a CFL bulb (which are not exactly environmentally responsible, what with all the mercury.)
While there’s been a lot of discussion about Climate Change and its effects, I believe there’s enough scientific agreement around how and why the Earth’s climate is changing to begin taking action. No matter what happens, climate-wise, we need a longer-term vision and a more sustainable, global strategy of stewardship.
Concessus is not science. As has been said time and time again, at one point everyone agreed that the Earth was flat and the Universe revolved around the Earth. How’d that work out?
But, see, AGW is not about actually fixing the climate: it is about power, prestige, and money. Lot’s of of the climahysteric leaders are getting all three. You think Al Gore wants the issue (not that there is a real one) to be solved? Hell no! He makes tons of money, is given a Nobel, has lots of power, and idiots hang on his every word when it comes to the climate. I personally used to like him a lot, as he believed in saving the environment for the environments sake. Now, not so much, since he is pushing this fake idiocy.
BTW, the idiot who wrote the article is a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle. Notice that she was writing about what YOU can do, not what she herself has done?
But, what is one of the other big reasons? How about Building an Anti-Capitalist Movement for Climate Justice. You can guess how that article goes. Down with capitalism! Up with Progressivism! Government control! Plus all the normal “people coming together” and blah blah blah. I wouldn’t trust these people to make a PB&J sandwich. They would talk it to death. And I suspect that the people who live in shacks with dirt floors, cooking their meals and getting heat from animal dung, and worrying about eeking out a subsistance from fallow fields, not to mention the disease, would tell the people in the 1st World, who have the luxery of whining about AGW, to go to hell.
OK, enough preaching. These kinds of Climahysterics really get my blood boiling.
Check out my post Bridgewater School Tells ACLU To Take A Hike at Stop The ACLU
[…] Check out my post Come On, Get AGW Active In 2009 […]
Teach said: Concessus is not science.
You’re right consensus is not science. Science relies on evidence.
The IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report is a summary of the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
There are many factors (both human and natural) that affect climate. These factors have unique signatures. One signature is the pattern of warming in the atmosphere. Decades of data from satellites and weather balloons show that the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, has warmed while the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, has cooled. If a change in the sun’s output were responsible for the current warming trend, the atmosphere should have warmed from the stratosphere to the surface. That’s contrary to what’s observed. Greenhouse gases, however, do not produce a uniform warming. They warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Al Gore has an estimated net worth of 100 million dollars. How important do you think money is to him at this point in his life ?
As far as the poor people are concerned, of course their own personal carbon foot print is rather small when compared to the wealthy first world countries.
As far as the CFL bulbs and mercury, exactly how much mercury do you believe will enter the enviorment because of them? Do you think that this amount will be more or less than the amount of mercury generated by coal fired power plants ?
GOREON$ that represent the poor, eh? – Robbing Hood 2009!
One more time for old times sake Teach:
BUSH – 271 electoral votes
Sorelosermen / Goreons – 266
The millionaire couldn’t even carry Tennessee or Arkansas? Sad!
GO NY GIANTS & Nj DEVILS!!
Teach, I agree with you that consensus is not science. However, I do believe that a consensus can be built based upon the results of research in a particular field of science. It seems that you’re switching things around here. Scientists have claimed to arrived at a reasonable amount of certainty on climate change based upon what their research, and you’re making it sound as though they’ve consensus based on nothing, and called it science. That’s very misleading.
Also, you’re two examples of previous “consensus” are not analogous. These were examples of a common understanding, based upon anecdotal evidence or ideology, which were later refuted by science. That’s backwards from what we have today. Today, we have a common lack of understanding of man’s role in climate change, resulting in the misperception that there is no correlation between the two, which has been refuted by a very large and growing body of scientific knowledge on the subject.
As Silke pointed out, the only other reasonable explanation that’s been given by “skeptics” is that the sun is causing the earth to heat up, but scientific evidence does not support that theory. The stratosphere would not be cooling if the was the source of the increase in the earth’s temperature.